17" PB size is good...

ransomedransomed
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
So some of you seem to think the new 'book is a little (or waaaayyy) too big. Maybe so. But not for me. I think the size is perfect. I drew a 17" PB in Illustrator (just the top) and printed it on a large format printer at work. I cut it with an exacto and looked at its real size. It's actually not bad, but when you picture a screen that large your jaw can't help but drop open. So: it's not too big, but definitely a very big screen.



[ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: RANSOMED ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    ransomedransomed Posts: 169member
    oooookaaayyy... so agree? disagree? don't give a crap?
  • Reply 2 of 17
    admactaniumadmactanium Posts: 812member
    i dunno. i have a 15" and it fits in my backpack just right. i think if it were larger, it would be a bit too vulnerable. i think it's a good size for a COMPUTER, but i don't think it's an ideal size for a PORTABLE computer.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    ransomedransomed Posts: 169member
    interesting point... but I'm sure all kinds of special cases will come out... being a creative professional I can expend a little bit of portability for such a huge screen.



    FYI - I aknowledge that it might be late to address this subject. It's just that I didn't see a thread that focused specifically on it. By the way: thanks to admactanium and anyone else who might want to throw me a bone. I'd really appreciate it. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of others on this matter.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    mrbilldatamrbilldata Posts: 489member
    The 17" is definitly a First class laptop.



    ... Because the seats in Economy class are only 18" wide. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 5 of 17
    multimediamultimedia Posts: 1,035member
    [quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:

    <strong>The 17" is definitly a First class laptop.



    ... Because the seats in Economy class are only 18" wide. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No Prob. It's only 15.4" wide. But it's not UXGA resolution. I want the full 1600 x 1200 UXGA screen that is already very popular in the PC world, not the paltry 1440 x 900 Apple pretends is BIG when it is in fact SMALL. I wish Apple would follow the market once in a while.



    [ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Multimedia ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 17
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    [quote]Originally posted by admactanium:

    <strong>i dunno. i have a 15" and it fits in my backpack just right. i think if it were larger, it would be a bit too vulnerable. i think it's a good size for a COMPUTER, but i don't think it's an ideal size for a PORTABLE computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd agree that the lapzilla might be too large a laptop for some laps.



    However, it makes an excelent 'portable' computer.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    If mini-me can use one, any one can.



    About the res. I don't get some of you. The 1600x1200 in some PC laptops has got to be the most irrational resolution going. The 17" could tolerate a bit more resolution, but I certainly wouldn't push it past 1600x1024, and ONLY because the screen is 17" and it's an LCD which can tolerate a bit more res thanks to the fuzz free nature and contrast of a good LCD display.



    Untill the graphics system and the OS can quickly and intelligently deal with resolution independent text everywhere, including, perhaps most improtantly, web pages, we will not see super high res displays, and that is, as Martha would say, a good thing.



    I want to smash my boss's 1600X1200 15" Dell against a file cabinet every time I have to use it for more than 5 minutes. He's convinced that it makes him more productive when using a spread sheet 'cause he can "see" more cells, but he isn't more productive at all. He spends hours a day with his nose 6 inches off the screen trying to read info he just entered, or moving it from one cell to another 'cause he entered it wrong.



    Apple's making good choices on screen res, leave it be for now.



    [ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 17
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    I think Apple was following popular culture trends with the 17". They are clearly inspired by The Anna Nicole Smith Show and The Osbournes and wanted to make a portable that was "just too much".
  • Reply 9 of 17
    shawnpatrickjoyceshawnpatrickjoyce Posts: 2,417member
    The analogy ends when you mention that unlike the AnnaNicoleSmith show and the Osbournes, this laptop has class!~
  • Reply 10 of 17
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    I still prefer the 12" PB. the 17" PB just doesn't look right.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>

    I want to smash my boss's 1600X1200 15" Dell against a file cabinet every time I have to use it for more than 5 minutes. He's convinced that it makes him more productive when using a spread sheet 'cause he can "see" more cells, but he isn't more productive at all. He spends hours a day with his nose 6 inches off the screen trying to read info he just entered, or moving it from one cell to another 'cause he entered it wrong.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, we've got a few of those black bricks around here, too. Except that everyone runs them at 1024x768. I'm sure they'd all rather use Apple's screens at native resolution than big, fuzzy desktops on overspec'd screens.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>About the res. I don't get some of you. The 1600x1200 in some PC laptops has got to be the most irrational resolution going. The 17" could tolerate a bit more resolution, but I certainly wouldn't push it past 1600x1024, and ONLY because the screen is 17" and it's an LCD which can tolerate a bit more res thanks to the fuzz free nature and contrast of a good LCD display.</strong><hr></blockquote>In comparison, I use my 19" CRT on pretty short distance and I'm perfectly happy with 1280x1024. 1600x1200 is too much.

    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>

    I want to smash my boss's 1600X1200 15" Dell against a file cabinet every time I have to use it for more than 5 minutes. He's convinced that it makes him more productive when using a spread sheet 'cause he can "see" more cells, but he isn't more productive at all. He spends hours a day with his nose 6 inches off the screen trying to read info he just entered, or moving it from one cell to another 'cause he entered it wrong.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>A buddy of mine had the same mental problem. He bought a certain monitor because at the time, it was the only 15-incher that could do 1600x1200. Then he rigged his Linux so that he could see 100+ rows of text in console, and claimed it "let him see more code at a time". Sure...



    - Gon



    [ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Gon ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 17
    xjudsonxjudson Posts: 3member
    just ordered a 'big book'



    got the ultimate w/ gig o ram



    I've always wanted a real world powerbook. it will fit me and my workspace like a glove.



    that's right, it's called the big book...
  • Reply 14 of 17
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    Yeah, we've got a few of those black bricks around here, too. Except that everyone runs them at 1024x768. I'm sure they'd all rather use Apple's screens at native resolution than big, fuzzy desktops on overspec'd screens.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    My work gave me one of those black bricks, and the screen resolution isn't that bad. Of course, the fact that the LCD is getting some odd image burn in is pretty weird. XP does a good of font smoothing.



    IMHO, the 14 inch iBook should bump its resolution up to 1280x1024. If 1024x768 is good enough for the 12 inch iBook, then the 14 inch iBook should have a higher resolution.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    people who say its too big are probably the kind of peopel who say a pound burger is too big





    ...god bless fudruckers (best burgers in the world)
  • Reply 16 of 17
    elricelric Posts: 230member
    I have the 17" imac and I believe its the same screen being used in the new big powerbooks. 1440 x 900 seems fine to me. I just wish you could rotate the imac screen so it would be extra tall, now that would be usefull for coding.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote]Originally posted by Yevgeny:

    <strong>



    My work gave me one of those black bricks, and the screen resolution isn't that bad. Of course, the fact that the LCD is getting some odd image burn in is pretty weird. XP does a good of font smoothing.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, some burn-in is spec for an LCD screen. Most notable to me was running an SGI 1600SW in OS 9. The Platinum menubar in 9 was *always* on the screen. So if I used the machine with that display for a few hours, and then the screen went black, I could see the menubar burned in, but in the corners mostly.



    Upon calling SGI, they suggested this was normal for a new display, and the burn in was not permanent. It goes away if you leave the display off for a bit. I haven't seen it happen in a looong time on this display either...
Sign In or Register to comment.